Oklahoma County

RE-2019-80

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2019-80

RE-2018-1287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

Here is a summary of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision regarding Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr.: **Case Summary:** - Appellant: Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. - Appellee: The State of Oklahoma - Case Numbers: CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 - Date of Decision: February 6, 2020 - Judge: Honorable Glenn Jones **Background:** - Chandler was previously convicted in two separate cases involving serious crimes: 1. Case No. CF-2015-2683: Guilt for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of an offensive weapon during a felony, and possession of an imitation controlled substance. 2. Case No. CF-2016-534: Guilt for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm. - Sentences: In both cases, he received suspended sentences with the first year of incarceration. **Allegations of Violation:** - On September 21, 2018, the State filed to revoke Chandler’s suspended sentences due to new charges related to his involvement in a violent robbery while on probation. **Revocation Hearing:** - The hearing began on November 27, 2018, where evidence was presented by the State indicating Chandler's direct involvement in the robbery of a loan business, during which he threatened employees with a firearm. - Chandler did not present any evidence in his defense. - The judge found Chandler in violation of probation, leading to the revocation of his suspended sentences. **Sentencing Hearing:** - A presentence investigation report was requested and filed before the sentencing hearing, which took place on December 20, 2018. - The State argued for full revocation based on the violent nature of the robbery, while Chandler's counsel argued for a more lenient approach citing Chandler's background and potential for rehabilitation. **Court's Decision:** - The Court upheld the trial court's decision to revoke the suspended sentences in full, emphasizing that Chandler committed a violent crime in direct violation of the conditions of his probation, which warranted no abuse of judicial discretion. **Conclusion:** - The Court affirmed the revocation of Chandler's suspended sentences, noting the trial court’s discretion in making its determination based on the evidence of Chandler’s actions while on probation. **Final Note**: For more detailed information, there is a downloadable PDF available [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1287_1734352969.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1287

F-2018-1072

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma in the case of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt. The appellant, Threatt, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eight years in prison. The opinion addresses three propositions of error raised by Threatt on appeal: 1. **Admission of Prior Felony Conviction**: Threatt contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to name his specific prior felony conviction (forcible oral sodomy) despite his offer to stipulate that he had a felony conviction. He cited the case Old Chief v. United States to support his argument. The Court ruled that Threatt did not preserve this issue adequately for appeal due to the timing and nature of his objections and ultimately found that there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Threatt claimed that the prosecutor's closing argument included highly prejudicial statements that unfairly influenced the jury. The Court examined the statements and determined they were reasonable comments based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, they did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant relief. 3. **Cumulative Effect of Errors**: Threatt argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors warranted a new trial. The Court disagreed, noting that the individual errors did not affect the overall outcome of the trial and therefore did not justify relief. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The opinion underscores the importance of proper procedural objections and the evaluation of trial conduct in the context of the entire trial. For more detailed information, a PDF of the full opinion can be downloaded from the provided link.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1072

F-2018-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KENNETH ALLEN DAY,** Appellant, **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-1161 **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Kenneth Allen Day was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Case No. CF-2017-2586) of: 1. **Count 1:** Sexual Battery (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123(B)) 2. **Counts 2 and 3:** Indecent Exposure (21 O.S.2011, § 1021) The jury recommended a sentence of 30 days imprisonment on Count 1, and 1 year imprisonment each on Counts 2 and 3. The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, presided over the trial and executed the sentences as per the jury's recommendations, ordering them to run consecutively and consecutively to Oklahoma County Case No. CF-16-6470. Day was granted credit for 177 days served and was subject to various costs and fees. Day appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED OKLA. STAT. TIT. 57, § 138(G) BY REFUSING TO GRANT MR. DAY CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SERVED WHILE AWAITING TRIAL AND SENTENCING, CLAIMING THAT THE STATUTE WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MANDATORY.** Upon a thorough review of the entire record including transcripts, exhibits, and the parties' briefs, we find no legal error necessitating relief. Therefore, Day's judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED. **Proposition I:** Day's claim pertains to the nature of credit for time served—whether it is mandatory or discretionary. Citing *Loyd v. State*, 1981 OK CR 5, 624 P.2d 74, Day contends that 57 O.S.Supp.2015, § 138(G) mandates credit for all time served prior to judgment and sentence. However, as recently discussed and clarified in *Luna-Gonzales v. State*, 2019 OK CR 11, this argument has been rejected. This Court noted that *Loyd* is inconsistent with the majority of case law on this subject and that the Oklahoma Legislature has amended § 138 multiple times since 1980, which indicates a legislative intent to modify the ruling in *Loyd*. The current statute indicates that defendants automatically receive credit for jail time served only post-judgment and sentencing. Significantly, *Loyd* is overruled to the extent it conflicts with this interpretation. We also recognize that the district court exercised its discretion appropriately in awarding Day partial credit for time served, which aligns with previous ruling in *Luna-Gonzales* that grants sentencing judges discretion regarding credit for pre-sentencing incarceration. Thus, Day's argument is rejected, and his assertion is firmly denied. **DECISION** The judgments and sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED. According to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE shall be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** RICHARD HULL (Counsel for Appellant) HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS KRISTEN MESSINA, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** LORI MCCONNELL MIKE HUNTER RACHEL SMITH JULIE PITTMAN, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, (Counsel for Appellee) **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR For further details and access to full judgment, [Click Here to Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1161_1734786325.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1161

F-2018-1103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BERT GLEN FRANKLIN,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-1103** **OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, Bert Glen Franklin, was tried by jury and convicted in a consolidated trial of Count 1, First Degree Murder (Child Abuse), and of Count 2, Solicitation of First Degree Murder. The jury recommended punishment of life imprisonment without parole on Count 1 and life imprisonment on Count 2, with the sentences running consecutively. Appellant appeals from this judgment and sentence raising two propositions of error. **PROPOSITION I: Joinder of Charges** Appellant contends that his cases should not have been joined in one trial, asserting that this improper joinder resulted in prejudice. However, as Appellant failed to object at trial, we must review this for plain error, which requires an actual error that is plain or obvious and that affects the Appellant's substantial rights. The statute governing joinder of charges, 22 O.S.2011, § 438, permits the trial of two or more offenses together if they could have been joined in a single indictment. Our analysis is guided by reconciling the factors set forth in previous case law. 1. **Same Type of Offenses:** The charges of murder and solicitation reflect a common theme of violence directed towards individuals involved with the defendant, qualifying them as the same type of offenses. 2. **Proximity in Time:** While the offenses occurred approximately seventeen months apart, the delay was due to Appellant's incarceration. They are sufficiently related given the circumstances under which Appellant acted. 3. **Proximity in Location:** Both offenses were committed within Oklahoma County, suggesting a logical relationship between the two. 4. **Overlapping Proof:** Evidence supporting each charge would have been admissible in separate trials since they are intrinsically linked to Appellant’s actions and intent. Given these observations, we find that the joinder was proper, and Appellant suffered no prejudice; therefore, no error occurred. We deny Proposition I. **PROPOSITION II: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the joinder. Under the Strickland test, Appellant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. Since we determined in Proposition I that the joinder was appropriate, Appellant cannot show that any failure to object prejudiced his case. As a result, we also deny Proposition II. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are affirmed. The mandate is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **For Appellant:** R. Scott Adams Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **For Appellee:** Mike Hunter Attorney General of Oklahoma Theodore M. Peeper, Asst. Attorney General 320 Robert S. Kerr, #505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 --- **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Result **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Recuse **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Recuse --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1103_1734788162.pdf) This ruling affirms the conviction and sentences of Bert Glen Franklin and addresses the legal standards regarding the joinder of offenses and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1103

F-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

RE-2018-1217

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DEXTER JEROME BIGLOW,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-1217** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Dexter Jerome Biglow appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-3262. On February 14, 2018, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to Aggravated Attempting to Elude and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (marijuana). He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on the eluding count and to one year of incarceration on the drug charge, to be served concurrently, with both sentences suspended. On November 6, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging that Appellant had committed the new crimes of domestic abuse by strangulation and domestic abuse resulting in great bodily injury. A hearing on the application to revoke was held on November 27, 2018, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, who granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the application to revoke. We respectfully disagree. **ANALYSIS** At a revocation hearing, the focus is whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's decision should not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, both Officers Taylor and Mueggenborg testified at the hearing, having individually interviewed the alleged victim of the domestic abuse. The judge found their testimony had substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, which allowed the court to consider the victim's out-of-court statements. Notably, while the testimony was contradictory, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding the State adequately proved its case for revocation. The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trial court, which may choose to believe or disbelieve any witness. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2017-3262 is therefore AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Thomas P. Hurley - Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks - Assistant Public Defender Danielle Connolly - Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter - Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa L. Henry - Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEVIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1217

F-2018-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-691

RE 2018-1288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-1288

RE-2018-1006

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-1006** **Jose Adolfo Rios, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **Judge Lumpkin:** Appellant, Jose Adolfo Rios, appeals from the revocation in full of his concurrent ten-year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2006-6132. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, ruled on this matter. On April 4, 2008, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Rape in the First Degree and two counts of Indecent or Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in sentences of twenty-two years for the rape counts (with the first twelve years suspended) and twenty years for the lewd acts counts (with the first ten years suspended), all to run concurrently. On July 25, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, asserting multiple violations of probation, including failing to report, change of address, pay supervision fees, attend mandated treatment, and committing a new crime—Domestic Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. During the revocation hearing before Judge Elliott, substantial evidence was presented regarding Appellant's violation of probation terms, including testimonies from Appellant’s probation officer and other evidence illustrating Appellant's failure to comply with treatment and reporting requirements. Appellant testified about personal struggles following a crime in which he was a victim, stating he had fallen victim to substance abuse and homelessness. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Elliott found sufficient basis to revoke the suspended sentences, having established by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had committed multiple violations, including failing to report and failing to attend treatment. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his sentence, asserting that Judge Elliott did not adequately consider alternatives to full revocation. **Analysis:** The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned without evidence of abuse of that discretion. Here, Judge Elliott had unrefuted evidence of Appellant's violations. The record demonstrates that Appellant acknowledged his failures and did not meet the terms of probation. While Appellant claimed that less severe measures should have been considered, the applicable statutes do not mandate such considerations during revocation proceedings. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in revoking the sentences in full. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's concurrent ten-year suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Ben Munda, Assistant Public Defender Hallie Elizabeth Bovos, Assistant Public Defender 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Suzanne Lavenue, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma Tessa L. Henry, Assistant Attorney General 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **Opinion By:** Lumpkin, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1006_1734358375.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1006

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

F-2018-1160

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RASHAUN HAASTROP,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1160** **FILED DEC - 5 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION:** The State introduced insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Haastrop had prior convictions out of Illinois and therefore his sentence must be modified. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for Rashaun Haastrup, or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, so we review them only for plain error, as established in *Mathis v. State*, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding, as seen in *Daniels v. State*, 2016 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See *Bickerstaff v. State*, 1983 OK CR 116, ¶ 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780. On this record, the trial court's conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer testified that Appellant admitted serving time in Illinois for two different crimes, specifically a drug offense and a theft offense; the State's documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. With identifying information provided by Appellant, the officer retrieved the Illinois documents. Given the unusualness of both names, their similarity, and Appellant's own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant's, as established by *Jackson v. Virginia*, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and *Garcia v. State*, 1987 OK CR 49, ¶ 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole proposition is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** **BENJAMIN MUNDA** **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **BONNIE BLUMERT** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **SUITE 611** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** **DANIEL GRIDLEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS** **TESSA L. HENRY** **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE** **SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1160_1734786705.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1160

F-2018-760

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Monte Dean Perry v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-760** **Judgment Date: December 5, 2019** **Overview:** Monte Dean Perry was convicted by a jury on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and endeavoring to perform an act of violence. The court sentenced him to 30 years for the first count and 5 years for the second, with both sentences to run concurrently. **Legal Issue:** Perry appealed the conviction, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove he assaulted the victim with a knife, arguing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. **Court's Review Standard:** The appellate court evaluated the evidence under the standard that favors the prosecution, determining if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as per *Spuehler v. State*. **Decision:** The court upheld the jury's conviction, finding that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the verdict. Perry's proposition of error was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. **Additional Notes:** - Perry must serve 85% of his sentence for Count 1 before being eligible for parole consideration. - The opinion was delivered by Presiding Judge Lewis, with concurrence from Judges Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland. For full text or additional details, refer to the official opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-760_1735216916.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-760

C-2019-227

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CYNTHIA ROWSHELL GAY,** Petitioner, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2019-227** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 31 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** Petitioner Cynthia Rowshell Gay, represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas as part of a plea agreement with the State to the charges of Count 1, Driving While Under the Influence, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 11-902, and Count 2, Driving While Under Suspension, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 6-303(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2019-369. The Honorable Kathryn R. Savage, Special Judge, accepted the pleas on February 19, 2019. The plea agreement included a five-year sentence on Count 1, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a one-year suspended sentence on Count 2, with the sentences running concurrently. On March 1, 2019, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea, and a hearing was held on March 21, 2019, which resulted in the denial of her application. Petitioner claims the following error: Ms. Gay did not knowingly and voluntarily enter her plea of guilty, and thus the District Court erred when it denied her Application to Withdraw her Guilty plea. Upon thorough review of the record, including original documents, transcripts, and briefs, we find no need for reversal or modification. Our evaluation of a guilty plea focuses on its voluntary and intelligent nature (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 1969; Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3). We review the denial of a petitioner's motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 5). Petitioner acknowledged signing the Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form, which reflected her voluntary decision to plead guilty and accept a suspended sentence. With prior felony convictions, she was familiar with the process. Her motivations for signing the plea agreement, including a desire to expedite her release from jail, do not render the plea involuntary (United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 404 (1st Cir. 1970)). Petitioner’s change of heart after consulting relatives does not provide grounds for withdrawal, nor does disappointment with her sentence (Miles v. U.S., 385 F.2d 541, 544 (10th Cir. 1967); Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44). The trial court found her plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and its findings during the hearing on the application to withdraw were credible. The record shows that Petitioner was fully informed of and understood the consequences of her plea. Her later claim regarding misunderstanding the conditions of her suspended sentence was deemed incredible by the trial court. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Therefore, the proposition is denied. **DECISION:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE KATHRYN R. SAVAGE, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** NICOLE BURNS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER HALLIE E. BOVOS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** RICKY LUTZ, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **NO RESPONSE NECESSARY** **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-227_1734232520.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2019-227

RE-2018-1071

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ, ) Appellant, ) V. ) No. RE-2018-1071 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Jose Angel Lopez, pled guilty to Count 1 - Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, a felony, and Count 2 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Count 2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with all but the first five years suspended. Following a one-year Judicial Review hearing, Appellant’s sentence for Count 1 was modified to three years to serve and seven years suspended. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by failing to pay supervision fees, failing to report as directed, and committing the new crime of Possession of CDS, as alleged in Lincoln County Case No. CF-2014-343. The application to revoke was later amended to further allege Appellant committed the new crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, as alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. Following a revocation hearing before the Hon. Glenn M. Jones, District Judge, Appellant's suspended sentence was revoked in full. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising a sole proposition of error: the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant's sentence based entirely upon hearsay evidence with no particularized guarantee of reliability. We affirm the order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557. An 'abuse of discretion' is defined by this Court as a 'clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.' Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, 5, 306 P.3d at 556. Judge Jones determined that the State showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant committed the new crimes alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. This decision was reached after reviewing the preliminary hearing's transcript from Case No. CF-2017-4230, in which the victim testified Appellant entered his yard and shot him while he was sitting on his front porch. This Court has held that neither the relaxed due process standards nor the provisions of Section 991b are violated when a transcript of a previous judicial hearing is admitted into evidence at a revocation hearing so long as the defendant was allowed to confront and cross-examine the witnesses at the previous judicial hearing. Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, 15, 188 P.3d 201, 206. A review of the preliminary hearing transcript shows that Appellant’s trial counsel, who also represented him at the revocation hearing, cross-examined the State's only witness. The testimony of a witness about his personal knowledge of the events, under oath and subject to cross-examination, is not hearsay. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GLENN M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE** APPEARANCES AT HEARING: LYDIA FIELDS ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TIFFANY NOBLE ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE 005 [Download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1071_1734355190.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1071

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-629

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN KEITH FULLERTON,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-629** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Brian Keith Fullerton, was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-4430, of four counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. The Honorable Bill Graves, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury's recommendation to life imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to be served as follows: two pairs of life terms to run concurrently, with one pair served consecutively to the other. Appellant must serve 85% of each sentence before being considered for parole. Appellant raises four propositions of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for both Count 1 and Count 2 Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of Sixteen because the State failed to prove Mr. Fullerton touched L.D. on the vagina more than once. **PROPOSITION II:** The information filed in this case was insufficient as it failed to apprize Mr. Fullerton of what he was charged with and was not specific enough to allow him to plead former jeopardy should the State seek to file other charges, in violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. **PROPOSITION III:** The prosecutors invoked improper sympathy toward the victim, L.D., and appealed to the jury's emotions, violating Mr. Fullerton's right to a fair trial. **PROPOSITION IV:** Trial errors, when considered in an accumulative fashion, warrant a new trial. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. **Analysis of Propositions:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the victim's statements were too vague for the jury to reasonably find he committed the acts described in Counts 1 and 2 more than once. However, the Court found the victim's consistent statements to family, the forensic interviewer, and her anatomical drawing support the conviction on both counts. The evidence was deemed sufficient as per precedent. 2. **Proposition II:** The Court noted that since Appellant did not challenge the specificity of the Information at trial, this complaint was waived except for plain error. The factual allegations of the Information were sufficient for Appellant to prepare a defense and to advance a plea of former jeopardy for similar subsequent charges. No error was found. 3. **Proposition III:** Appellant argued that the prosecutor's closing remarks improperly invoked sympathy for the victim. With no objection raised at the time of the closing argument, the Court reviewed for plain error and found no basis for relief, as the comments were grounded in the evidence presented at trial. 4. **Proposition IV:** The Court determined that since no errors were identified in the prior propositions, there could not be cumulative error. **DECISION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE BILL GRAVES, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** KENDA MCINTOSH MELTEM KARLA TANKUT ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA COUNTY **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA COUNTY **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** MEREDITH EASTER MIKE HUNTER MCKENZIE MCMAHAN ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OKLAHOMA COUNTY --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

Continue ReadingF-2018-629

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426

F-2018-664

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KEYUNA CRYSTAL MOSLEY,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-664** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 19 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Keyuna Crystal Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801, after being previously convicted of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1853. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment, requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant raises one proposition of error: that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus due process mandates her case be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. **Decision:** After thorough consideration of the complete record, including original records, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find the law and evidence do not necessitate relief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery with a dangerous weapon (Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559). To establish robbery with a dangerous weapon, the State must demonstrate that the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property from another's person or immediate presence occurred by force or fear, specifically involving a knife (21 O.S.2011, § 801; OUJI-CR 2d 4-144). The term “principal” in a crime includes anyone who either directly and actively commits the acts constituting the offense or knowingly and with intent aids and abets in its commission (Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, ¶ 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814; OUJI-CR 2d 2-5, 2-6). Appellant contends the State failed to prove that she acted conjointly with her boyfriend in committing the robbery. She argues that the victim Seale's testimony was incredible and contradicted by her own statement, and that the State should have corroborated Seale's testimony with additional evidence such as forensic evidence, text records, or records of their online communications. This assertion is incorrect. While the State could have provided such corroborative evidence, it was not required to do so. Seale was both an eyewitness and the victim, and the jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony (Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269). The jury is entitled to make reasonable inferences supporting their verdict. Even in cases of sharply conflicting evidence, we will not disturb a properly supported verdict (Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432). The evidence established that Appellant lured victim Seale to the crime scene, called her accomplice, and directly took and carried away Seale’s property while her accomplice threatened the victim with a knife. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the jury (White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, ¶ 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065). Thus, this proposition is denied. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** TIMOTHY M. WILSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG. 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAN POND KATHERINE BRANDON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TESSA L. HENRY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR **[Download PDF Version Here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-664_1735223763.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2018-664

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case of Cesar Jurado is summarized as follows: **Background:** Cesar Jurado pled guilty in multiple cases in December 2015, including felonies for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, among other charges. After completing a Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders, his sentences were deferred until June 14, 2026. **Acceleration of Sentences:** In January 2018, the State sought to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences, claiming he committed new crimes, including Murder in the First Degree and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Following a hearing in July 2018, Jurado's deferred sentences were accelerated, resulting in life imprisonment on several counts, which were to run concurrently. **Appeal:** Jurado appealed the trial court's decision to accelerate his sentences, arguing that it was an abuse of discretion based on the uncorroborated testimony of an unreliable witness, who did not provide in-person testimony. **Court's Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower court, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to introduce the transcript of a preliminary hearing as evidence. The court noted that the Appellant's counsel had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses during the preliminary hearing. The standard of proof for violations of deferred sentences is a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court has discretion in such matters. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the acceleration of Jurado's deferred sentences, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion based on the evidence presented. **Mandate:** The mandate for this decision is to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. **Opinion by:** Judge Hudson, with Judges Lewis and Kuehn concurring, and Judge Rowland recused. For more detailed information, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-610_1735310684.pdf).

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

RE-2018-662

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-662

RE-2018-674

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-674

F-2018-248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-248, Mosi Abasi Dennis appealed his conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the verdict. One member dissented. Mosi Abasi Dennis was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy related to a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and ten years for conspiracy, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Dennis was involved in a plan to rob Antonio Walker. He and others went to Walker's house under the false pretense of purchasing drugs. When they arrived, Dennis refused to abandon the plan, even when it became clear that others were present in the house. Things escalated, and during the robbery attempt, Dennis shot Walker's father, Kenneth, who had entered the room to see what was happening. On appeal, Dennis raised several arguments. First, he claimed that there was unfair treatment in jury selection because a minority juror was removed while a white juror, who had similar issues, was allowed to stay. The court found no evidence of racial bias and held that the reasons given for removing the juror were fair. Second, Dennis argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during closing arguments, asking jurors to sympathize with a co-conspirator. The court ruled that this did not unfairly influence the jury as the statements were part of explaining the witness's behavior. Third, he contested the admission of graphic photographs of the victim, believing they were too prejudicial. The court decided that the images were relevant to the case and helped explain the events that unfolded during the crime. Dennis also claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence adequately demonstrated that Dennis shot the victim during the robbery. Furthermore, Dennis believed he should have been given instructions for a lesser offense of second-degree murder, but the court found that there was no solid evidence supporting such a charge. Finally, Dennis argued that the combination of errors during the trial warranted a reversal of the conviction. The court concluded there were no significant errors that would have affected the trial's outcome. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentencing, stating that there were no legal errors that warranted overturning the jury’s decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-248

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335